What I see is a young man who hasn't lived long enough to have anything to point to and say conclusively "He is ______" or "He is ________. What is he? 23 or 24? The 20's are a time for finding one's way and figuring things out for yourself.

I agree, I am almost the same age as him and I have no idea what I want to do or what I want to be. It must be hard because I have alot of opportunites he in a lot of ways doesn't he has a "job" but not really. He can get a regular "job" but not really. You can compare him to all the other royals but really there isn't anyone in the same position as him. I think Haakon was the oldest when he became the heir and he was the same age as William. His father had a hard time figuring out what to do with his life as a King in waiting.

I think the army is good, although I wish in some ways they would just appoint him Commonwealth guy. Since he is young without a family and popular it might be a good idea to send him to the Commonwealths just to firm up links. Espically since the Queen is getting older.

But I think he will be fine. Everything he does seems so planned out. I remember before he graduated no one knew what he was going to do. Once he graduated he had what I think was the same as Crown Princess Victoria's "Queen School". He has two patronages right now.

As for the "do something wild". Again with the comparing it to my own life (which is a little weird) My sister is like Harry will go out drink a lot party a lot. That's fine that is her thing but I'm not like that. The doing something wild that I would did was moving to China when I was 20, or making my friends dinner drinking wine and talking politics or going to a play or a concert. It's not 'bad' it's just different not every 20'ish year old is going to want to spend every night at the bar.

I think Prince William is ok..I think he is the person who likes to have fun but he carries it with style and more careful as he is second in line to the throne..You cant blame him for not being Harry as a happy-go-lucky prince, Harry is more relax coz he is the spare and not the heir..I get what others here want to point out, that Wills is so boring, not taking daredevil risks, not a tabloid newsmaker..Well we got enough from Charles and Diana's troubled marriage and messy divorce..Its now the time that we get some good news,atleast,to one of their sons..Wills is the future His Majesty, King William IV of England and not a Hollywood celebrity so we could forgive him for not seeking media attention or making bad publicity..but we cant tell for sure if he'll remain naive and boring all his life coz he is just 23..There's a still a long way to go..and we cannot tell if he is really serious as he seems to be..We dont know him personally,might be,in private, he's the coolest person you'll ever encounter..Its just that he is too nice and doesnt make any adventurous news thats why some here thinks that he is too boring..

There was a comment that Charles had tried what I suggested- taking up a truly interesting, Madame Pompadour-like mistress. That wasn't the case: Charles took up a non-fashionable mistress who was, let's say, not exactly stunning and over the top. I'm saying he should take up a sort of Diane de Poitiers-style mistress- a woman with natural instincts for power and drama and scandal.

Sadly grecka, Charles is not that kind of guy and I don't think William is either.

Charles was always a bit of a fuddy-duddy; I say that with the ultimate affection because some guys in my family are the same way. He was never a great womanizer and it was a great shock to me that he had an affair at all. Going off to your old girlfriend who you should have married in the first place is simply not in the same league as Aristotle Onassis carrying on with Maria Callas (now there was a true diva and the type of mistress I think you meant!) or Donald Trump running off with Marla Maples.

William is like his father in that respect. He doesn't gain his self-esteem by having a beautiful, flashy dramatic grand dame at his side. He'd have to be a little egoistic and narcissistic for that.

He was actually, but it was not his natural inclination. He was rather following the strange and highly questionable advices of Mountbatten.

Hi Idriel,

The papers in the 70s certainly made it seem that way, didn't they?

Most of his relationships with women that were supposedly wild flings were I believe mostly platonic. Charles did have an ability to have great friendships with women which is not what I'd call womanizing. He didn't collect women as trophies, so to speak.

I think charles was trying to be the bachelor prince and get a lot of women but he certaintly wasnt a player. Prince Charles does develope close friendships with women(Camilla amongst others). Diana was said to be flustered by his friendships. But, Charles does seem like a one real love women type of guy. If he has it good he is not giving it up or ruining it.

Probably because he is second in line to the throne... or are you suggesting that when he becomes king he shouldn't lay a wreath because he hasn't actually seen service. He is, after all, currently a serving officer. Just because the government won't let him go to a war zone doesn't mean that he isn't serving in the military.

Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

So the only people who are valuable soldiers are the ones who fight in wars? William is currently a serving officer in the Army, and discrediting his service as "not doing anything" is an insult to every soldier who has done what he has. Without the ones who do things away from the battlefield, there may as well be no Army.

Head of State is different. A Head of State can lay a wreath without doing any form of service but why have William there now? He hasn't done anything in the military apart from dress up as a soldier and run around a field a bit. I don't see how that warrants him laying a wreath in memorance of real soldiers. And that goes for Edward too. The only wreaths he should be laying are for his failed TV career.

So according to you only those who have actually served should lay a wreath to acknowledge those who lay down their lives, or were prepared to lay down their lives, for us.

Fortunately here in Australia anyone can lay a wreath if they so choose and wish to acknowledge the sacrifice of those who have, and/or are currently serving, especially those who made the ultimate sacrifice. At my last school all students whose parents were currently in the military (the school was next to an army base) always laid wreaths on ANZAC Day (the big remembrance day in Australia and NZ although we both will be acknowledging Remembrance Day this Sunday but the ceremonies will be smaller than those on ANZAC Day) and then any other student who wished to do so was able to do so. According to you none of them should have done so - what a pity that then the younger generation don't get a chance to acknowledge the sacrifices made.

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.

I agree with Beatrixfan that William must be one of the most boring young man in Great-Britain (and Kate one of the most boring girls). They seem like a middle-aged couple who are living on the countryside, devoting all their time on hunting, raising dogs and drinking sherry with their privelliged friends. I really do not see the charisma some people claim he has, and as far as the good looks go: he is not that goodlooking and misses a certain charm.

I have read through this thread almost entirely and find many posts about Prince William, from both sides of the coin, to be fascinating, even if (well, more like even though) I don't agree with each statement. Marengo's way of stating this point, while unoriginal (only because it was stated by others here in varying ways) strikes me in a particular way. I have had these kinds of thoughts about William and Kate many times.

Honestly, I am not one who takes a particular side in this discussion. I am neither a great "fan" nor a great critic of Prince William. I suppose one might say that I am just watching him (now it has been fifteen years since I have been an active British royal watcher) and waiting, watching, observing, taking things as they come, as they are. That is the best way to describe my thoughts on Prince William. They aren't unbending by any means. Because I realize he is 25 years old and there is nothing unbending about that age. So I just take him for what he is, as he is, and allow that each appearance brings a fresh aspect.

His dullness compared to Harry (undoubted, undisputed) does not bother me very much. I appreciate that some people are just born with a subdued manner. In William's case, it's not so bad when you consider that he brings a lot of joy to the people he meets. The joy arises from a kind of sycophantic feeling, yes, but joy is joy, no matter where it comes from. What is the difference between feeling happy because you think you like something and feeling happy because you like something? Think about it.
So someone who inspires joy in people, in anyone (maybe not me or you, but in the people he meets, when he finds time in his "hectic army schedule" to attend an engagement) is not altogether to be dismissed as a worthless human being.

I have more to say, and will say, on this topic. However, I must call it wrap, as we say, for the time being. Thank you, Sam/Beatrixfan, for this thread. As always, it was a pleasure to read the many passioned thoughts from the members, ironically so passionately decided about the so dispassionate Prince William.

Good heavens, that posted by me some time ago, maybe two years or so? Anyway, I don't mind the 'boring' part that much, I can be pretty boring myself too at times . And at least he is not boozing like his younger brother. Still the group of friends he socialises with seem to be typical boarding school boys, with a privelidged upbringing and little connection to 'real' life. But I suppose most royals socialise with these kind of people (just take a look at the facebook networks of Amedeo of Belgium, Albert of Thurn und Taxis etc).

Yep, I have come to this thread late.... I'm always stumbling on old threads I never noticed before.... About socializing with the upper class set, it is typical for his family. Harry does that too. The Queen, when she was Princess Elizabeth, was always accused of staying in one small set of privileged people. I think it just goes with the territory. Like many people, myself included, they flock to a safety net of social territory. Maybe the royals just don't do it more than most, or it's more apparent with them because they are so closely watched and analyzed, because of their position.... but even so, I guess it's just very, very normal to befriend a group that makes you feel safe.

So according to you only those who have actually served should lay a wreath to acknowledge those who lay down their lives, or were prepared to lay down their lives, for us.

No and I made that clear. The Head of State whether having seen active service or not, lays a wreath for the nation in the same way as Nicholas Sarkozy would lay a wreath on behalf of the French Republic. Queen Beatrix lays wreaths on behalf of the Dutch and that's acceptable. Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will. Whilst their colleagues have been fighting, they've been parting - to have William (who can never fight we're told) laying a wreath is as much as insult to his colleagues as it is for Tony Blair to lay a wreath.

Quote:

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.

I think younger people accept it has meaning anyway. Certainly my school always observed the 2 minute silence, we all wore poppies and in the latter years we went to the local memorial garden. If they want a representative of those killed in the Middle East, let the parents lay a wreath, not someone who's just been playing at soldiers to avoid getting a proper job. I wear bananas on my head, it doesn't make me Carmen Miranda. William laying a wreath in fancy dress doesn't make him a soldier.

Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will.

Do you think, then, that it was wrong of Princess Elizabeth to lay her wreath there in 1947?

No and I made that clear. The Head of State whether having seen active service or not, lays a wreath for the nation in the same way as Nicholas Sarkozy would lay a wreath on behalf of the French Republic. Queen Beatrix lays wreaths on behalf of the Dutch and that's acceptable. Until now, the Royals have laid their wreaths based on their military record and that's why Edward has never laid a wreath before. Suddenly he's laying one alongside William - why? William and Harry haven't seen active military service and they never will. Whilst their colleagues have been fighting, they've been parting - to have William (who can never fight we're told) laying a wreath is as much as insult to his colleagues as it is for Tony Blair to lay a wreath.

Quote:

The whole point of Remembrance Day is for everyone to remember those who served and died in the past wars (or are currently serving in present ones). Surely having a representative from the current military, who is also second in line to the throne is a good way to show the younger people that this day still has meaning.

I think younger people accept it has meaning anyway. Certainly my school always observed the 2 minute silence, we all wore poppies and in the latter years we went to the local memorial garden. If they want a representative of those killed in the Middle East, let the parents lay a wreath, not someone who's just been playing at soldiers to avoid getting a proper job. I wear bananas on my head, it doesn't make me Carmen Miranda. William laying a wreath in fancy dress doesn't make him a soldier.

I find it interesting that according to you those people who have graduated from Britain's world famous military academy aren't soldiers.

What an interesting concept?

Of course, here in Australia, anyone who has the Queen's Commission from the military academy is regarded as serving military personnel but obviously in Britain that isn't the case, if you are to be believed (and I suspect in this case you are wrong).

I wonder what all those soldiers who graduated in times when Britain didn't have any wars to fight feel about the fact that they weren't really soldiers. As someone who did hold the Queen's Commission but never saw any sought of 'active' service I find the suggestion that I wasn't a 'soldier' a strange one to say the least.

Not everyone who graduates from a military academy (or gains the Queen's Commission some other way - mine was through the Australian Reserve Army Training Course and not a military academy) ever sees service in a war zone but they serve nonetheless.

If that were the case, then Charles should not lay a wreath either. Many soldiers have never seen a battlefield, nor have the majority of men, women and children who lay wreaths each year. I do have a problem with Edward laying a wreath, only because I feel they are using the 'cover' of William to make it more acceptable.